In any case, though, do these graphs really show that voters reward presidents for results? Hardly. Almost all economists agree that the president has only a mild effect on the macroeconomy. Much of the credit and blame for economic performance should go to other political actors - the Fed, Congress, state governments, etc., and a lot is outside the control of any political actor.

As Achen and Bartels memorably wrote:

If jobs have been lost in a recession, something is wrong, but is that the president’s fault? If it is not, then voting on the basis of economic results may be no more rational than killing the pharaoh when the Nile does not flood, as some scholars believe occurred in ancient Egypt, or voting against Woodrow Wilson when sharks attack the Jersey shore, as we believe happened in 1916. [footnote omitted]

Hibbs' results do little to vindicate voter rationality. What they really show is that you don't have to live in ancient Egypt to mistake a mortal man for a God-King.

Comments and Sharing

That article had a lot of awfulness, and I even agreed with its premise. World wars 1 & 2 desperately needed American intervention? Keep chugging that Kool-Aid. I'm agnostic on the subject of flouride.

Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do
not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of
Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund,
Inc.

The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.